Thursday, April 13

Chuck Colson can bite my butt.

Confession time: I am not a rabid pro-choicer. I wish the Democratic Party would mail a condom to every household, attached to a postcard that says: "We Democrats are serious about reducing the number of abortions in America. Here."

I don't see the point in making a serious argument. Because, clearly, the pro-lifers are not serious about ending this argument. They make too much money and too much mileage from convincing their followers to keep fighting this culture war that real solutions are not part of the picture.

C. Everett Koop once said on the News Hour that we would not solve the abortion problem until we "bite the bullet on contraception." I hear that from doctors all the time, that effective contraception is the number one need of their young women patients of every religious background, and that the fundy undies are often the first to come off in the backseat of a car, and definitely the least prepared contraceptively when they do.

And Nina Totenburg said during the Roberts hearings that overturning Roe is the worst thing that could happen to the Republican party short of a military draft.

Get real, fundy undies. Our girls deserve so much better than hiding facts under religious wingnuttery. And when you're serious about reducing the number of abortions in this country, I want to work with you.

And confidential to Chuck Colson: Ya know, if we had aborted more Republican babies in the first half of the twentieth century, Watergate, like, never woulda happened.

Lu's right--it's about wilfull stupidity. I live in a country run by people who would rather have me get cervical cancer than deal realistically with the fact that not everyone waits until they're married to have sex.

Well said, BG! "Pro-life" leaders aren't really interested in decreasing the demand for abortions. They'd lose a major fund-raising issue. I wish the Democrats would say that publicly and stop pandering to the same kookiness that gives kids inaccurate information about contraception and objects to vaccines for HPV and HIV.

Dave Munger (linked on my blogroll) has been carrying the banner for some time now that the pro-lifers are really anti-sex, not pro-life. He's not alone in making that argument, but he talks a good pitch.

I agree with him, of course. But I wonder, why are these Americans so anti-sex? Surely our Puritan heritage has been diluted beyond all recognition by the passage of time and by millions of non-Puritan immigrants . . . right? What explains this fevered hatred of sex?

Perhaps it's just a control issue -- men controlling women -- but that pushes the question back a step. Why is feminism so weak here, compared to other parts of the Western world? And that makes me think that people like Robertson and Dobson really are American Mullahs. It's the only thing that makes any sense at all to me. We're seeing the logical outcome of, what? 20 years of radical fundamentalist revival?

The last thing the Right wants to do is really overturn Roe v. Wade. Once they do that, they lose the impetus for the evangelicals to rush to the polls en masse. They desperately need this issue to galvanize their voting base.

Here's a thought: If we want to reduce the incidence of abortion, why not form a commission to study the Netherlands? Their per capita abortion rate is like a fifth of ours. Why? Well, for starters, they are more educated that we are. Also, they have a tradition of openness regarding sexual matters, which we obviously don't. But more importantly, they have a true desire to actually reduce societal problems, regardless of which end of the political spectrum they occupy, whereas we just want to use societal problems as cannon fodder for short-term political gains every election cycle. This is why every candidate pledges to get tough on crime even though the crime rate is on a 30-year decline. It's the same fear tactic employed by Madison Avenue. You know - "He's cute, but that itch" - that type of stuff. Fear sells and it wins elections, too.

how do you know that "fundy undies" are the first to come off? Was there a study done?

why would you assume that every evangelical pro-lifer (which i am) doesn't actually want to prevent abortions... of course we want real solutions. (i.e. greater number of adoptions to care for all of the un-aborted babies).

your little joke at the end about aborting more republican babies in the first half of the twentieth century is so inappropriate. if you take a serious look... & I mean a serious look at the procedure to kill a living baby in the 1st, 2nd or 3rd trimester, (most) would see...it is a purely awful thing to happen. These babies pain sensors aren't even developed which means the process of being murdered by a Dr. is equivalent to being tortured in the worst way. Farm animals in America have more rights to dying a fair & humane death, than babies in the womb who suffer trememdously no matter what procedure is used to kill them. It's one thing when folk argue that abortion should be used in the case of rape & when the mother will die, etc. But it's another thing all together to simply use abortion as an option b/c you accidentally had sex & got pregnant & mommy & daddy will be mad at you....or if you want to prevent future watergates.

So abortion is even better if you can use it on pregnant Republicans that disagree with you. After they are taken care of, then you can use it on pregnant Democrats that disagree with you. And since that will not satisfy you, you will come up with new issues to remove people that disagree with you. Great basis for democracy.